The “Doctor Who” TV series has been around a long time and with each new generation, it finds a new way to make itself relevant. The original plot-device of regeneration has proven to very powerful indeed as each new incarnation of the Doctor connects in his own way with the audience.
Like the Doctor, the DSM has been around a long time too. With each regeneration, it has expanded and reorganised its scope of mental disorders. Also like the Doctor, the DSM-V has the power to change time: what used to be just an uncomfortable feeling is now a symptom of something worse and has been forever.
However, unlike the TV Doctor, the DSM promises salvation: with your symptom now safely defined as a disorder, you qualify for the DSM cure – often a sequence of pills, often manufactured by companies that sponsor the authors of the DSM itself.
Looking through the long list of symptoms, it’s pretty tough to find a part of life that does not qualify as a symptom, as suffering. Maybe it is a little unfair and simplistic, but shouldn’t one be suspicious of the cure when the disease is defined by the people who profit from the dispensation of its cure? Shouldn’t the definition of the disease and the people going on and on about how terrible the disease is be viewed with a little bit of caution? In fact, shouldn’t the entire framework be up for a thorough kicking-of-the-tyres?
Who is the Doctor actually looking after?